• LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-703-556-0411

Bid Protest Weekly
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
    • WHAT is a bid protest?
    • WHO can file a bid protest
    • DO I need an Attorney?
    • WHY Should you file a bid protest?
    • WHEN Must you file a bid protest?
    • WHERE can you file a bid protest?
    • READING the RFP
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us

Northrop Grumman Information Technology, Inc., B-400134.10, August 18, 2009

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • August 18, 2009
  • Evaluation CriteriaProposal Evaluation

Link:   GAO Opinion

Agency:          Department of the Air Force

Disposition:  Protest sustained in part, denied in part.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

GAO Digest:

1. Protest that Air Force failed to properly evaluate the awardee’s proposal and assess its proposal risk is sustained where, contrary to the evaluation scheme announced in the solicitation, the agency failed to evaluate staffing under all of the Mission Capability sub factors.

2. Protest that agency improperly evaluated proposals is sustained where the solicitation stated that they would be evaluated on “the extent to which” they exceeded a requirement, and proposals that were substantially different were nevertheless rated the same.

3. Protest of agency’s decision not to consider revised proposals in the reevaluation following corrective action is untimely when filed after the issuance of the new award decision, where protester knew or should have known prior to that award decision of the agency’s intent not to consider proposal revisions.

General Counsel P.C. Highlight:

The protester alleges that the agency improperly evaluated the proposals. GAO states that the evaluation of an offeror’s proposal is a matter within the agency’s discretion. Agencies are required to identify the bases upon which offerors’ proposals will be evaluated and to evaluate offers in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria. In reviewing a protest against an agency’s evaluation of proposals, GAO will examine the record to determine whether the agency’s judgment was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable procurement statutes and regulations. Here, as explained below, GAO concludes that the agency failed to properly evaluate the offerors’ proposed staffing under the Mission Capability/Proposed Enterprise End State subfactor, and improperly evaluated the proposals under the Mission Capability/Small Business Subcontracting subfactor.

NGIT first specifically argues that the agency’s risk analysis of GDIT’s proposal was flawed because the agency failed to properly consider the comments made by the team evaluating the awardee’s proposal under the Proposed Enterprise End State subfactor (PEES). The comments at issue were made primarily by one evaluator and concerned, in part, the validity of GDIT’s claims that it would realize staffing efficiencies. The contracting officer asserted, not that the evaluator’s comments in question were in fact considered, but that the agency properly decided to disregard the comments because the Air Force did not evaluate offerors’ staffing under [the PEES] subfactor. To support its contention that the Air Force was not required to evaluate staffing under the PEES subfactor, the agency cites various portions of the RFP that indicate staffing would be considered under other Mission Capability subfactors. However, GAO finds that the agency’s argument ignores the provisions of the RFP indicating that staffing is an inherent part of the PEES subfactor, and that staffing information will be used to evaluate all Mission Capability Subfactors. Moreover, the record simply does not support the agency’s claim that staffing was not assessed for any offeror under the Mission Capability/Proposed Enterprise End State subfactor. The record reveals that the agency in fact evaluated staffing under Mission Capability/PEES, but did so inconsistently.

Next, NGIT challenges the agency’s proposal evaluation under the Mission Capability/ Small Business Subcontracting subfactor. The RFP stated that the proposals would be evaluated on the extent to which the proposed level of subcontracting exceeded the 40% base requirement. During the first evaluations the agency stated that GDIT’s proposal had minimally exceed[ed] the requirement and rated that proposal green under the subfactor. The agency’s Proposal Analysis Report (PAR) concluded that NGIT and [Offeror A] both significantly exceeded the small business subcontracting standard of 40% that resulted in a BLUE. GDIT and [Offeror B] both exceeded the 40% standard, but not significantly enough to be considered a Blue. In the reevaluation, the PAR concluded that all of the proposals significantly exceeded the subcontracting requirement and improved small business opportunities, and therefore all of the proposals were rated blue under this subfactor.

Agencies are required to identify the bases upon which offerors’ proposals will be evaluated and to evaluate proposals in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria. Where an RFP states that it will evaluate the degree to which a proposal exceeds a requirement, a comparative evaluation is required. Ratings that do not distinguish between proposals that make different commitments are inconsistent with that evaluation scheme. NGIT’s proposed level of small business subcontracting, over and above the required 40% minimum, exceeded that of GDIT, a difference the contracting officer termed slight. Given the wide range of proposed subcontracting levels in excess of the required minimum, the agency’s reevaluation determination that all of the proposals significantly exceeded the requirement is not consistent with the stated evaluation criterion, namely, that a favorable assessment under this subfactor would be based on the extent to which an offeror’s proposed approach exceeded the small business subcontracting requirement. While the agency had the discretion to create an evaluation scheme that would rate blue all proposals that simply exceeded the requirement for this subfactor, which is not the evaluation method that was announced in the RFP. Because the agency failed to follow the stated evaluation criterion, GAO sustains the protest on this ground as well.

Lastly, the protester argues that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal risk as moderate under Mission Capability/Core Communications and IT Services Management. At issue is whether the agency was required to consider information submitted by NGIT as part of its protest of the first award decision. GAO states that in general, a protest based upon alleged improprieties in a solicitation that are apparent prior to the closing time for receipt of proposals must be filed before that time. The protest issue, which challenges the ground rules that the agency announced for the corrective action and recompetition, is analogous to a challenge to the terms of a solicitation. In GAO’s view, the protester knew or should have known that the agency did not intend to hold discussions or permit clarifications with NGIT when it received a December 19, 2008 email from the contracting officer. It was therefore unreasonable for NGIT to await the agency’s second award decision without raising any challenge. This protest allegation is therefore found untimely.

Share

Related Posts

You wanted Professional, I got your professional!

August 17, 2022

Matter of Science Applications International Corporation

February 28, 2022

Matter of WRG Fire Training Simulation Systems, Inc.

January 12, 2022

Matter of: PAE National Security Solutions, LLC

July 22, 2021

Comments are closed

Search Bid Protest Weekly

Need help with a bid protest?

Call us at: 703-556-0411 Or fill out this form:

Categories

  • 8(a) Sole Source Awards
  • Acknowledging Amendments
  • Adequately Written Proposal
  • Adverse Agency Action
  • Adverse Impact Analysis
  • Agency Tender
  • Alternate or Previously-Approved Product
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution
  • Ambiguity in Solicitation
  • Attorney's Fees
  • Bad Faith in Evaluation
  • Below-Cost Offer
  • Best Value
  • Beyond the Scope
  • Bias
  • Bid and Proposal Costs
  • Bid Bond
  • Bid Compliance
  • Bid Protest Decisions
  • Bid Protest Jurisdiction
  • Bid Protests
  • Bidding Best Practices
  • Blanket Purchase Agreement
  • Blanket Purchase Order
  • Blog Articles
  • Bona Fide Needs Rule
  • Brand Name or Equal
  • Broad Agency Announcement
  • Brooks Act
  • Bundling or Consolidation
  • Buy American Act
  • Cancellation of a Solicitation
  • Capability of Contractor
  • CCR Registration
  • Certificate of Competency (COC)
  • Certification Requirements
  • Changes Clause
  • Clarifications
  • Clear and Convincing Evidence
  • Clearly Meritorious Protest
  • Clerical Error
  • Commercial Item Acquisition
  • Competitive Range
  • Compliance
  • Conflict of Interest
  • Construction Design-Build
  • Construction Services
  • Contract Administration
  • Contract Modifications
  • Contracting Preference
  • Contractor Responsibility
  • Corporate Capability
  • Corrective Action
  • Cost Accounting System
  • Cost Evaluation
  • Cost Realism
  • Cost Reimbursement Contract
  • Cost-Technical Trade-Off
  • Customary Commercial Practice
  • CVE
  • DCAA Audit
  • Debriefing
  • Default Termination
  • Deficient Price Proposal
  • Delivery Order jurisdiction
  • Delivery Schedule
  • Designated Employee Agent
  • Disclosure of Price
  • Disclosure of Source Selection-Sensitive Information
  • Discussions
  • Disqualification
  • Documentation of Evaluation
  • Domestic Production Requirement
  • Education Center Articles
  • Electronic Filing
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Evaluations
  • Events
  • Executive Order Compliance
  • Experience of Contractor
  • Experience Requirement
  • Facility Clearance
  • Fair Market Price
  • FASA
  • FedBizOpps
  • Federal Prison Industries (FPI)
  • Filing Deadlines
  • Final Evaluation
  • Final Proposal Revisions
  • Financial Responsibility
  • Fixed Price Contract
  • Former Government Employees
  • FSS Contract
  • GAO Bid Protest Review
  • GAO Jurisdiction
  • GAO Standard of Review
  • Government Contracts
  • Government Office Closings
  • Government Surplus Material
  • GSA Lease
  • HUBZone
  • ID/IQ
  • Impaired Objectivity
  • In-Sourcing
  • Incentive Fee
  • Inclement Weather Delay
  • Incomplete Proposal
  • Incorporation by Reference
  • Incumbent Capture
  • Incumbent Status
  • Independent Government Estimate (IGE)
  • Individual Environmental Report
  • Industrial Mobilization
  • Innovations
  • Interested Party
  • Invitation for Bid
  • Invited Contractor
  • Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act
  • Joint Venture
  • Key Personnel
  • Labor Hours
  • Labor Rate Pricing
  • Late Proposals
  • Late Submissions
  • Level of Effort
  • Licensing Requirements
  • Limitation on Subcontracting
  • Liquidated Damages
  • Lost Proposal
  • Lowest Price Technically Acceptable
  • Mail-Box Rule
  • Management Planning
  • Market Research
  • MAS Contracts
  • Material Misrepresentation
  • Material Solicitation Amendment
  • Material Solicitation Terms
  • Meaningful Discussions
  • Micro-Purchase Threshold
  • Minimum Requirements
  • Misleading Discussions
  • Mistake
  • Mitigation Strategy
  • Multiple Awards
  • NAICS Code
  • National Security
  • Negotiation
  • News
  • Non-Procurement Instruments
  • Novations
  • Offeror Representations
  • OMB Circular A-76
  • Option Exercise
  • Oral Presentations
  • Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)
  • Page Limitations
  • Past Performance
  • Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)
  • Performance Based Standards
  • Permits and Responsibilities
  • Personal Conflicts of Interest
  • Post-Award Changes to the Contract
  • Post-Protest Re-Evaluations
  • Practicable Alternative
  • Pre-Award Protest
  • Pre-award vs. Post-award Requirements
  • Pre-Qualification of Offerors
  • Pre-Solicitation Notice
  • Prejudice
  • Price Calculation Error
  • Price Calculation Error
  • Price Evaluation
  • Price of FSS Task Order Quote
  • Price Realism
  • Price Reasonableness
  • Price Reduction
  • Procurement Announcement
  • Procurement Integrity
  • Product Testing
  • Proposal Acceptance Period
  • Proposal Detail
  • Proposal Evaluation
  • Proposal Extension
  • Proposal Standards
  • Proposals
  • Protest Terms of Solicitation
  • Protester Comments
  • Public-Private Competition
  • Randolph-Sheppard Act (RSA)
  • Rate Tenders
  • Re-Certification of Size Status
  • Reconsideration
  • Reevaluation
  • Reevaluation Standards
  • Reimbursed Attorney's Fees
  • Reimbursement of Protest Costs
  • Rejection of Proposal
  • Relaxation or Waiver of Requirement
  • Relevancy of Past Performance
  • Reliance on the Proposal
  • Remedies
  • Requirements Contract
  • Responsibility
  • Responsiveness
  • Restricted Competition
  • Resumes
  • Revision of Proposal
  • Revision of Proposals
  • Risk
  • Rule of Two
  • SBA Status protest
  • Scope of GAO Review
  • SDVOSB Set-Asides
  • Significant Issue Exception
  • Simplified Acquisition Procedures
  • Site Visit
  • Size Determination
  • Size Protest
  • Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program
  • Small Business Set-Asides
  • Small Business Subcontracting Goals
  • Sole-Source Award
  • Solicitation Amendment
  • Solicitation Requirements
  • Source Approval
  • Source Selection Authority
  • Source Selection Decision
  • Source Selection Plan
  • Sources Sought Notice
  • Staffing Plan
  • State and Local Requirements
  • Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)
  • Subcontract Protest
  • Subcontractor Experience
  • Suspension and Debarment
  • Taking Exception to RFP Requirements
  • Task Orders
  • Teaming Agreement
  • Technical Acceptability
  • Technical Evaluation
  • Technical Evaluation
  • Termination of Award
  • Terms of the Solicitation
  • Timeliness of Protest
  • Timely Filing
  • Timely Performance
  • Timely Proposal Submission
  • Trade Agreement Act
  • Unbalanced Pricing
  • Unduly Restrictive Terms
  • Unequal Access to Information
  • Unequal Treatment of Offerors
  • Uniform Time Act of 1996
  • Unstated Evaluation Criteria
  • Unusual and Compelling Urgency
  • Use of Appropriated Funds
  • Veterans First
  • VIP Database
  • VOSB Set Asides
  • Wage Determination

Get Help


Talk to an
attorney who
specializes
in bid protests:

+1-703-556-0411
Email

Keep up to date
on bid protest
decisions and
policies:

© 2023 Bid Protest Weekly

  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
    • WHAT is a bid protest?
    • WHO can file a bid protest
    • DO I need an Attorney?
    • WHY Should you file a bid protest?
    • WHEN Must you file a bid protest?
    • WHERE can you file a bid protest?
    • READING the RFP
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-703-556-0411